Mechanical Engineering Department at Seattle University was awarded a NationalScience Foundation grant to revolutionize the department. The department’s proposal centers oncreating a program where students develop strong identities as engineers. It leverages thedepartment’s small size and close ties with industry to create a culture of “Engineering withEngineers.” Details of the program changes in progress can be viewed as part of the 2018 and2019 ASEE NSF Grantees’ poster sessions and papers [1], [2]. The background section of thispaper draws on a work-in-progress poster presented at the 2018 ASEE Annual Conference thatreported on students’ explicit engineering identities as measured by the ESIS-2 [3].Background: Why Identity MattersIdentity
historically been limited to the realm of higher education; however, due to theincreasing demand for engineers, recently engineering has been moving into the pre-collegeenvironment. Though there were some efforts to introduce engineering to pre-college students inthe 1990s, such as Project Lead the Way, which was founded in 1997 [1], there was little in theway of a formalized push to introduce engineering to K-12 students until the late 1900s. In 1998,the Massachusetts Board of Education began developing engineering standards for their K-12students, which were adopted in 2000 [2]. This is often seen as a turning point for pre-collegeengineering education with engineering becoming a more common component of K-12 standardsin the years that followed. By
survey data indicate that exposure toengineering activities has a significant effect on youth’s engineering attitudes. Qualitativeanalysis of video data, using event maps and discourse analysis, suggests why and how youths’attitudes may change. This study advances the field’s understanding of how engineering interestand affiliation may be developed among middle-school-age youth in informal learningenvironments. Implications for educators and curriculum developers are discussed.IntroductionEconomists and industry leaders agree, the future is looking bright for most engineeringprofessions. Through 2026, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects engineering jobs, inaggregate, will grow at a faster rate than the average for all industries [1
in the capstoneexperience were not part of the engineering leadership development class. Therefore, while theinformation presented here may be useful to the general community of engineering leadershipdevelopment, it may not directly apply to all curricular circumstances.There is a body of literature regarding the need for engineering students to learn to work moreeffectively with other disciplines within a business structure to attain project success. Whetherespoused through visionary calls [1] or compilation of industrial feedback [2], it is generallyaccepted that engineers need “soft” skill development to succeed in team environments in the“real world.” A number of efforts have either documented the need for development of skillsnecessary
Alumni Society. Affiliations include Fellow of ASME, member of ASEE, AIAA, the Penn State Alumni Association, Centre County Chapter Board of Directors, President’s Club, Nittany Lion Club. He has been honored with a LMC Leadership Award, GE Phillippe Award, PSEAS Outstanding service award, Jaycee International Senatorship, and an ESM Centennial Fellowship. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Engineering Leadership Styles in Industry TodayBackground Attempts have been made to identify qualities of engineering leaders, but a specificdefinition has not been identified [1-3]. Nevertheless, industry and academia agree that anunderstanding of engineering leadership is
allowed in a given engineering program or department. The engineering program hasfirst-year to sophomore retention that is over 80%, and sophomore to graduation rates above 90%.The current study sought to understand the program experiences that were part of a two-semester coursesequence, which includes a targeted module for the selection of an engineering major, shown in Figure 1.The discernment module formally begins in week 6 of the semester with 8 seventy-five minute classsessions dedicated to understanding engineering majors, careers, and opportunities at the university andafter graduation. During this module, students gain exposure to the engineering departments available atthe university through a series of required events. In order to make
hear from upperdivision students and alumni about their educational and professional pathways9. This approachhas been implemented at two institutions, a medium sized, Midwestern Public institution since201210 and also at a selective Midwestern Private institution since 2016 which is currently beingassessed. The Midwestern Public reported: (1) an increased major changes during the first-year,(2) decreased major changes after the first-year, and (3) increased retention in STEM and theengineering college as a whole five semesters following the program10. The current study is afollow on to the original study in that, there are now four cohorts for consideration, two that didnot participate in the new model and two cohorts that did participate
Engineering Education, 2019 Engineering Prerequisites at Florida UniversitiesIntroduction and BackgroundEngineering, being a specialized profession, requires specific courses to be completed prior toentering the junior year of an ABET-accredited program. The subset of the undergraduatepopulation that transfers into an engineering program "has become significant as the UnitedStates looks to ameliorate the erosion of its preeminence in science and technology in the world"[1]. According to the Committee of Science, Engineering, and Public Policy and the NationalScience Board, as reported by Ashby, there are those that argue given “the decline of U.S. bornbaccalaureate and graduate degreed engineers and scientists and increasing global
undergraduate students to mentor middle school youth. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Engineering skills and not people through the first-year design experience and service-learningAbstractThis Complete Evidence-Based Practice paper draws from the pedagogical theory of service-learning and how it is used to assess student perceptions of a first-year engineering design courseat the University of South Florida. It applies the definition of service-learning by Oakes andLima [1] as “a pedagogy that integrates service within a local, regional, or global communitywith academic learning”. Also, in accordance with Oakes and Lima [1], the components of thecourse mirror
associated level oftechnology and cost: 1. Small, student-built version 2. Medium, classroom version used by all students 3. Large, full-featured version that was remotely accessible via the internetVersion 1 – Small, student-built house The first version of the IoT House was design so that a small team of students could buildtheir own structure. This structure was approximately 15”x15”x15” in size and was constructedprimarily from form board readily available from a local hardware store. The pieces for thewalls and roof were cut and glued together so that the house could be instrumented with the IoTdevices that the teachers received during the summer workshop. These devices can measure anumber of environmental parameters
are widely recognized as problem solvers [1]. Solving problems commonly includesworking collaboratively in design teams to generate solutions to real-world problems [2].Throughout the engineering design process, engineers make decisions about how to understandthe problem, design solutions, evaluate solutions, and then implement the solution that bestaligns with user needs. Many of the decisions made in the engineering design process haveimplications for the well-being of members of our society and our globe. As such, undergraduateeducation should facilitate holistic development of engineering students’ ability to makedecisions in ill-structured settings such as design [3, 4]. In engineering education, explicitdiscussion of decision making
. Specificquestions we are examining include: • What differences exist between students’ sense of belonging based on academic and social demographics their academic level (year in college, gender and race/ethnicity)? • What differences exist for two student cohorts, sophomores and juniors, from Year 1 to Year 2 in the project? • What is the nature of students’ experiences in CE that affect their sense of belongingness in engineering?MethodsStudy ContextIn 2017, a CE department at a southeastern land grant institution was awarded a National ScienceFoundation (NSF) Revolutionizing Engineering and Computer Science Departments (RED) grant, whichaims to achieve “significant sustainable changes necessary
’ learning. Two effective strategies include utilizing collaborative teamwork andproviding opportunities for students to reflect on their learning experiences. We simultaneouslyintroduced these two strategies in an engineering class of 120 students to explore the relationshipbetween engineering students’ self-reflection, teamwork, and academic performance. The datawere collected using two specific technology tools. We used CourseMIRROR [1]–[3] to collectstudents’ reflection data, and CATME Smarter Teamwork [4]–[6] to collect students’ peerevaluation of team membership. CourseMIRROR was used in 26 lectures to collect students’reflection data, and we collected a total of 3430 student reflections (~60% completion). Thereflection data comprised of two
ofEngineering (NAE) report published in 2017 [1], “Engineering Technology in the United States”.This report suggests that research addressing the engineering technology student population isunderrepresented in certain areas. Specifically, this work supports furthering our understandingof what influences student choice of major, how socioeconomic factors influence student choice,and how mentoring, peer support, and differences between 2- and 4-year schools impact studentprogress and choice. Recommendation 4 suggests that research is needed to understand thevariety of programs found in engineering technology and resulting employment followinggraduation. It also supports investigation into pay differences between disciplines and how thatimpacts students
, design, andimplementation of engineering and technology in engineering field. It is generally expectedengineering technologists often work under professional engineers. However, InternationalEngineering Technologists Agreement (IETA) stipulates an engineering technology shalldemonstrate “the competence for independent practice as an engineering technologist asexemplified by the International Engineering Alliance (IEA)1 competency profile.” IETA(Sydney Accord) provides knowledge profile for engineering technologists as: a systematic,theory- based understanding of the natural sciences applicable to the sub-discipline,conceptually-based mathematics, numerical analysis, statistics, and aspects of computer andinformation science to support analysis
that engineering technologyand related disciplines tend to be male dominated. The reporting students most frequentlyidentified as white, followed by Asian and Hispanic. Most students attended a suburban, publichigh school and about 47% of students reported receiving no support as they prepared to attendcollege.Key Words: Undergraduate students, matriculation, retention, graduation, engineeringtechnologyIntroductionThe work offered in this paper was intended to address recommendations 3 and 4 from a reportpublished by the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) [1]. This recommendation suggeststhat researchers focus on understanding the population of ET (Engineering Technology) studentsthrough understanding why they choose ET, socioeconomic
capture.For this study, we asked students to record their activities within 13 different categories as shownin Table 1. We created a shared Google Sheet for each participant to record their data in 30-minute increments each day. For every increment, a student would select from one of the 13categories that described their activity for that 30-minute time block. Additionally, students wereasked to also include what class an activity was associated with, the location of the activity, andany additional notes they could provide. Figure 1 shows a sample screenshot of the Google Sheetstudents were asked to fill out each day. Each shared workbook included 14 identical sheets, onefor each day students were asked to record their data. For the categories column
Design (CAD). c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019Enhanced Student Learning Experience in Technical Drawing and CADthrough Augmented Reality and Micro Credentials Yue (Jeff) Hung1, Daniel Weinman1 1 Farmingdale State CollegeAbstractComputer Aided Drafting and Design is a required freshman course for Mechanical EngineeringTechnology AAS and BS and Manufacturing Engineering Technology BS programs atFarmingdale State College. The course teaches students technical drawings and computer aideddesign (CAD) which includes 2D computer aided drafting, and 3D modeling. These topics areclosely related. The students who excel in these topics will have
systemcontrollers [1]. Therefore, the course lectures include a significant amount of time presentingmathematical derivations and discussing control theory. Students can easily lose their interest inabstract concepts such as those covered in this course and, consequently, their understanding ofthe course material will not reach the desired level by the end of the course. Active learning hasbeen shown to improve student engagement and increase the depth of theoretical knowledge.Therefore, including hands-on activities would be beneficial in resolving such issues [2,3]. Anadditional motivation to include hands-on projects and demonstrations in our control systemdesign course is that these activities support the attainment of ABET student outcome (6
theincreasing influence of engineering design and computing in shaping our lives, education standardsshould require all students to have significant and equitable STEM experiences. Such arequirement would foster an interest in STEM subjects and careers in more, diverse students, whilereducing the focus on STEM pipelines.IntroductionAs a response to a recent essay from Lecturer Stuart Reges on “Why Women Don’t Code,” [1]Professor Barbara Oakley of Oakland University supported his premise that women often choosenon-STEM disciplines, but attributed part of the responsibility for limited science, technology,engineering and mathematics (STEM) diversity to faculty from the humanities and social scienceswho “malign” STEM disciplines and
connection of concepts and applications. Students can often learn to solvetextbook problems, without deeply understanding the connection between various courses andfundamental engineering concepts. Therefore, although engineering curricula are well-designedand highly structured, a few research studies have reported that students who successfullycompleted the engineering education still faced challenges during the college to career transition[1, 2].The advances of additive manufacturing technologies have provided a unique platform tointegrate multiple mechanical engineering topics and courses to enhance both graduate andundergraduate education. Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology has been well-accepted asan additive manufacturing approach for
the lower-division level. The program was modeled on previous programsthat had been shown effective at retaining URM students [1] [2]. First and second year studentswere targeted for this research program because over 70% of the STEM students who leaveCSUB without a degree leave in the first two years. The first two years are a critical interventionperiod for promoting success and retention.In [3], we described the first two years of the program and presented preliminary results withrespects to attitudes and awareness, along with one-year retention data. In this paper, we look atthe full four years of the program to analyze multi-year retention rates, the survey and interviewdata collected during the program, and the follow-up surveys
of student feedbackregarding the level of their interest in programming before and after robotic activities, thechallenges of programming a robot, and their overall rating of integrating robotic activities inprogramming classes are presented and discussed.IntroductionIntroductory computer programming is a core subject in the curriculum of computer sciencemajor. The subject is frequently taught in three different courses; namely, CS 0, CS 1, and CS 2.The topics covered in CS 0 are often related to various fundamental concepts in computing andcomputer algorithms. Many computer science programs place a particular emphasis on computeralgorithm in CS 0 to familiarize students with programming logic. In CS 1, students learn towrite computer
multipleinstructors, ranging from graduate students to full-time faculty members. It is notable thatstudents taking this course during the spring semester are considered “off-semester” students.Traditionally, students enter the program in the fall and take the courses in a Fall-Springsequence. In contrast, off-semester students take the courses in a Spring-Fall sequence. Duringthe traditional sequence, each major-granting engineering department offers information sessionsin the Fall for students taking the course. However, because of the reduced number of studentstaking the off-semester sequence, this resource is not available to them in the Spring semester.The Foundations I course offered during Spring 2018 contained eight explicit learning outcomes: 1
learning has dramatically beendecreasing [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. According to a survey done by the Business HigherEducation Forum in May 2012, 35% of four-year college students were math proficient but notinterested in STEM [7]. In another survey, 42.1% of college students were not proficient and notinterested, 15.2% were not proficient but interested, 25.4% were proficient but not interested andonly 17.3% were proficient and interested. The middle two categories “not proficient andinterested” and “proficient but not interested” contribute to approximately 41%. The students inboth categories need some effort to either improve their learning outcome or to keep themfocused during the learning process to retain their interests. Many
true value is known. However, in real life, the correct value remains anunknown and an analyst is only able to specify a range for the measured value with a probability. Uncertainty is typically indicated using an interval along with a certain probability (usually95%). For instance, if the measured value of a variable is 𝑥𝑥̅ and the uncertainty is u x with 95%confidence, then Eq. (1) means that the true value of x would fall within the defined range 95percent of the time on average.𝑥𝑥 = 𝑥𝑥̅ ± 𝑢𝑢𝑥𝑥 (1) The uncertainty of an instrument is typically indicated by its manufacturer. As a rule ofthumb, if the uncertainty of a device is unknown, one can
EntrepreneurialIntentions within either engineering or business majors [1], or on the psychological side of inten-tions [2], this current work bridges the gap between intentions and Entrepreneurial Actions.Our work is based on qualitative semi-structured interviews of participants in the EngineeringMajors Survey (EMS) 1 . All 16 interviewees participated at least at two of the three nationally-representative, longitudinal Engineering Majors Surveys. The EMS is a survey designed to ex-plore engineering students’ technical, innovation, and entrepreneurial interests and experiencesover time. The interviewees in this study had relatively high Entrepreneurial Intentions comparedto the average of all EMS participants. Furthermore, they are categorized into three groups
, Wilfrido Alejandro Moreno1,2,3 1 Complex Systems & Education Network – ISTEC (SCED-ISTEC) 2 University of South Florida(USF) - Electrical Engineering Department 3 Ibero-American Science and Technology Education Consortium (ISTEC)ABSTRACT The proposed framework for ethics training, allows for a contextualized and meaningfulThe contemporary society characterized by learning model for new engineers favoring theinter/multi/trans-disciplinary, globalization, inter/multi/trans-disciplinary with
Engineering Department. She served as Co-PI on an NSF RET Grant and a USDA NIFA grant, and is currently co-PI on three NSF-funded projects in engineering and computer science education, including a Revolutionizing Engineering Departments project. She was selected as a National Academy of Education / Spencer Post- doctoral Fellow and a 2018 NSF CAREER awardee in engineering education research. Dr. Svihla studies learning in authentic, real world conditions; this includes a two-strand research program focused on (1) authentic assessment, often aided by interactive technology, and (2) design learning, in which she studies engineers designing devices, scientists designing investigations, teachers designing learning experiences
theimportance of engineering ethics. Educators have begun incorporating engineering ethics incurricula in a variety of formats: as a component in introductory or capstone courses, a centralelement in stand-alone courses, and/or through deliberate integration across curriculum [1], [2].The main approaches in teaching of ethics continue to use case studies or case-based discussionssupplemented by moral theory and/or professional codes of ethics. Service learning is anotherapproach that has increasingly been used and reported as an effective pedagogical strategy ininstruction of engineering ethics [3]-[5]. In the U.S., the main driver in incorporating ethics inengineering curriculum was the changes in ABET engineering criteria requirements on